Another post on morality

[Alueshen]

So morality is the yardstick (if you will) that we use to determine if an action is "good" or "bad". The misunderstanding is, IMO, that morality is itself standard of good or bad.

Kind of like the length of a ruler doesn't determine what a foot is, it is the measurement that determines what the length of the ruler will be. We chose the measurement and while one might argue that choosing the dashed lines that go on a ruler night be entirely arbitrary, I'd argue that the length of any form of measurement is indeed very specific based on what you are trying to accomplish, that is, no one would would measure the distance from the earth to the sun using a ruler any more than they would use light years to measure their height.

Morality does not make a statement about the good and bad until a set of values is established. The idea that there is such a thing as "objective morality" is a non-nonsensical notion as there are no such thing as values independent of subjects.

To say that life is valuable is to assume that there is a thing called life and there are those that value it, once you have established this subjective notion you can make objective statements about how life is best valued.

To say that god is the source of morality is really just saying that god is the source of all values, but he is still the subject of the subject object relationship....That is unless you're willing to argue that values are independent of god in which case he's just the messenger and seemingly unnecessary.

Thoughts?

[Divine Insight]

I think the real problem in this thread is going to be making the distinction between "Absolute" and "Objective".

Tell me what you think the difference is, so I can read your post again with that in mind.

Things can be made "objective" relative to other conditions, situations, and given standards. This doesn't make them "absolute" in any sense beyond the context in which they have meaning.

Therefore we can speak about "Relative Objective Morality" which is relative to subjective values which must first be chosen and are ultimately "opinions" and therefore have no underlying physical or objective absolute reality.

This would not be anywhere near the same thing as an imagined. "Absolute Objective Morality" that would supposedly transcend all subjective values and opinions.

This is why when people speak of "Objective Morality" it's best to have them define what they mean by that term in the first place.

Are they speaking of some imagined "Absolute Morality" that is totally independent of anything else?

If so then they are on the spot to explain what that concept could even possible mean. And what would be its basis?

As pointed out in the OP, if the argument is that this is some God's subjective value system, then that's what it is. It's ultimately subject to the opinions of this imagined God character.

On the other hand, if it's claimed to be some form of "Absolute Morality" that must necessarily even transcend God, then this makes God virtually meaningless in discussions of morality.

In the meantime I think it's pretty clear that the OP is suggesting that the human sense of morality is based entirely upon human subjective values.

This can then make morality "objective" only relative to this basis. But it certainly wouldn't be an absolute basis of reality.

So when you speak of something being "objective" exactly what do you mean?

Does everything that's objective need to be absolute in some primal sense of the basis of reality?

Or can some thing be relatively objective based upon current situations, contexts, and even subjective opined values?

We don't need to imagine a God for things that are merely relatively objective to current situations.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 16 by Artie]

Is suicide immoral?

Aren't there numerous situations where the golden rule doesn't apply? Rape for instance?

If survival is more moral, is risking your life to save another life immoral, given that you are more helpful than the one you're trying to save?

[Artie]

[Replying to post 16 by Artie]Is suicide immoral?

Yes, it's objectively wrong. Which is why we stop people from committing suicide, say they are ill and try to cure them.

Aren't there numerous situations where the golden rule doesn't apply? Rape for instance?

Not enough detail to answer.

If survival is more moral, is risking your life to save another life immoral, given that you are more helpful than the one you're trying to save?

The moral instinct is "help others". The vast majority increase others and their own chances of survival by helping others. In certain situations helping others means risking your own life, but many instinctively do so because the survival of many outweighs the survival of one.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 16 by Artie]Is suicide immoral?

Yes, it's objectively wrong. Which is why we stop people from committing suicide, say they are ill and try to cure them.

I don't agree, but so long as you're consistent.

Aren't there numerous situations where the golden rule doesn't apply? Rape for instance?

Not enough detail to answer.

Golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (or something similar)

Not everyone wants the same thing.
For instance, if you want sex with someone, but they don't want sex with you, "doing unto them as you would have them do unto you" would be having sex with them - as you would have them do unto you. They don't want it, so it's rape.

When you say "not enough detail to answer", are you saying that the golden rule doesn't categorically outlaw rape - that the details of rape matter as to whether or not it is preferable? Or only that the golden rule only deals with cold pragmatic scenarios like "save 100 lives by torturing 1 innocent", and that their may be situations in which it is justified?

If survival is more moral, is risking your life to save another life immoral, given that you are more helpful than the one you're trying to save?

The moral instinct is "help others". The vast majority increase others and their own chances of survival by helping others. In certain situations helping others means risking your own life, but many instinctively do so because the survival of many outweighs the survival of one.

given that you are more helpful than the one you're trying to save

I.e., is it immoral to give your life to save someone that you know will benefit society less

[wiploc]

I think the real problem in this thread is going to be making the distinction between "Absolute" and "Objective".

Tell me what you think the difference is, so I can read your post again with that in mind.

Therefore we can speak about "Relative Objective Morality"

You make my head spin.

As pointed out in the OP, if the argument is that this is some God's subjective value system, then that's what it is. It's ultimately subject to the opinions of this imagined God character.

And, to the extent that my opinions differ from the god's, his opinions---and therefore his morality---is irrelevant to me.

If a god tells me that rhubarb tastes good, that won't make it taste good to me. If he tells me that rape is good, that won't make it seem good to me.

If a god's morality is based on his own subjective preferences, he can butt out of my business.

I assume we're on the same page here.

On the other hand, if it's claimed to be some form of "Absolute Morality" that must necessarily even transcend God, then this makes God virtually meaningless in discussions of morality.

Right. If god's morality is justified by claiming that he doesn't create morality, but rather only perceives and reports it, then that morality supersedes god. God is not necessary to it. God is irrelevant to morality, except as one voice among many, shouting, "I've got it figured out. Come listen to my contradictory drivel and tell me how smart I am!"

In the meantime I think it's pretty clear that the OP is suggesting that the human sense of morality is based entirely upon human subjective values.

Yes.

So when you speak of something being "objective" exactly what do you mean?

On the one hand, I try to avoid setting the definition, since whoever I'm talking to probably means something else. Even if she means what I mean in this sentence, she'll probably mean something else in the next, since "objective" is frequently used for equivocation.

So, in this thread, we've got the OP's meaning of "objective" to worry about. And then you jumped in using the same word, so that's probably two conflicting meanings. I'd hate to add a third.

I don't want to confuse people by adding a third definition to the mix. On the other hand, you caught me: I did use the word. And I don't want to be withholding when you ask a direct question.

So, in answer to your question, while I was drafting my post I went to dictionary.com, and I found this definition, "of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality," and that is what I had in mind when I drafted my post.

Does everything that's objective need to be absolute in some primal sense of the basis of reality?

I have no idea what you mean by "absolute." Which is fine, since I don't know what it would have to do with the OP.

Or can some thing be relatively objective ...

Again, this makes my head spin. Relative morality is a thing, and objective morality is a thing. But relatively objective morality? That seems a promiscuous mixing of terms, an invitation to drive myself to insanity.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 16 by Artie]Is suicide immoral?

Yes, it's objectively wrong.

How is it objectively wrong?

I read The King Must Die. I watched Harold and Maude. I saw my grandmother live thru twelve years of angry insane suffering. Then I watched my father deteriorate thru years of sane suffering.

That suffering was pointless. There is no reason to go thru it myself when I can switch off.

To claim that suicide is wrong is to vote for an immense amount of unhappiness on a global scale.

It is a claim that does much harm. It is a claim that cannot be defended.

[Artie]

Replying to post 16 by Artie]Is suicide immoral?

Yes, it's objectively wrong.

How is it objectively wrong?

Evolution and natural selection is an objective automatic natural process. The survival instinct is the result of an objective process so it is objectively correct for us to have it. If people try to take their own lives that is against the survival instinct so we stop them, say they are ill and try to cure them.

I read The King Must Die. I watched Harold and Maude. I saw my grandmother live thru twelve years of angry insane suffering. Then I watched my father deteriorate thru years of sane suffering.

Did they kill themselves?

To claim that suicide is wrong is to vote for an immense amount of unhappiness on a global scale.

You aren't seriously saying that we shouldn't try to stop people who want to commit suicide?

It is a claim that does much harm. It is a claim that cannot be defended.

You really don't understand that there's a difference between a young person standing on a bridge ready to jump and a terminally ill suffering person and assisted suicide?

Maybe you simply can't express yourself properly. Try again.

[Divine Insight]

I don't want to confuse people by adding a third definition to the mix. On the other hand, you caught me: I did use the word. And I don't want to be withholding when you ask a direct question.

So, in answer to your question, while I was drafting my post I went to dictionary.com, and I found this definition, "of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality," and that is what I had in mind when I drafted my post. .

Ok, given that definition I agree that no morality could be objective. Because by the definition you've given for something to be objective it must be independent of thought. And a concept of morality cannot even exists beyond thought.

[wiploc]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 588#693588]Artie[/url]"]
[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 564#693564]wiploc[/url]"][quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 537#693537]Artie[/url]"][quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 508#693508]Jashwell[/url]"][url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 444#693444]Replying to post 16 by Artie[/url]]Is suicide immoral?[/quote]Yes, it's objectively wrong.[/quote][quote]How is it objectively wrong?[/quote]Evolution and natural selection is an [b]objective[/b] automatic natural process. The survival instinct is the result of an objective process so it is objectively correct for us to have it. If people try to take their own lives that is against the survival instinct so we stop them, say they are ill and try to cure them.[quote]I read [i]The King Must Die[/i]. I watched [i]Harold and Maude[/i]. I saw my grandmother live thru twelve years of angry insane suffering. Then I watched my father deteriorate thru years of sane suffering.[/quote]Did they kill themselves?[quote]To claim that suicide is wrong is to vote for an immense amount of unhappiness on a global scale.[/quote]You aren't seriously saying that we shouldn't try to stop people who want to commit suicide?[quote]It is a claim that does much harm. It is a claim that cannot be defended.[/quote]You really don't understand that there's a difference between a young person standing on a bridge ready to jump and a terminally ill suffering person and assisted suicide?

Maybe you simply can't express yourself properly. Try again.[/quote]

I'm not going to try to untangle that. Learn to use blanklines.

[wiploc]

Ok, given that definition I agree that no morality could be objective. Because by the definition you've given for something to be objective it must be independent of thought. And a concept of morality cannot even exists beyond thought.

Great, now we can get back to the point (my point, anyway) that the OP contradicts itself when it says that
you can have objective rules built on a foundation of subjective values,